Date: Fri, 19 Apr 96 10:05:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Women's oppression



Ryan Daum raises a number of points.

I think the core confusion is over what is meant by eg
"focus[ing] around class interests".

I am NOT a syndicalist. I do not think that politics, including
class politics, is limited by the horizons on the narrowly trade
union struggle.

Take, for example, Lesbian and gay struggles.

There is a continuous tension in the Lesbian and gay movement essentially
over how "respectable" it should be. In the UK, the tendencies are
probably best represented by the appalling badly named "Stonewall" 
( the last thing these people would be caught doing is rioting ) and
Peter Tatchel's "OutRage !".

I have most instinctive sympathy for Outrage's rejection of the softly,
softly, constitutional, legalistic approach of Stonewall. Stonewall's
argument is essentially that gays need allies in order to achieve reforms,
so gays better not piss the potential allies off. Outrage, rightly, 
reject this, saying militancy is required, that Stonewall's approach
never gets anywhere and never will.

But, since they reject socialist politics, they end up with what is 
essentially non violent gay terrorism, carried out by a tiny minority
of outrage's supporters, itself a minority of a minority.

Socialists, in contrast to both sides in this debate, argue for mass activity. 
We do not pose abstract arguments about "class struggle" as an ALTERNATIVE
to the struggle for gay rights. But, first we point out the class roots
of Stonewall's politics - basically, the ( almost entirely male ) gay
middle class - and then go on to argue that the way to involve the 
widest possible numbers of people, gay ( out or not ) and straight, is
to deliberately seek to draw in people from other struggles against
particular aspects of capitalism.

The only way this can be done is via socialist politics - pointing out that
capitalism creates the various separate problems and a united fight
against them is the way to win each individual struggle, and that this
unity can only really be built successfully centered where we are strongest
- at work. ( And this is why Lesbians and gay men should come out at work ).

Socialist politics inevitably means you lose "respectable" allies, gay and
straight, but you gain the potential to win.

>
> I.e. telling Quebecois workers that they should 
> be fighting for class unity in the Canadian state while their real 
> experience in the world shows them that their national struggle _is_ 
> important in some way is a way of a) showing how marginalized your 
> perspective is and b) marginalizing it further.
> 

I'd have argued for class unity and a "oui" vote myself.

> 
> Women will define their various oppressions in the hierarchy that effects 
> them.  In a patriarchal society, they are _first and foremost_ oppressed 
> women.  They are _not_ first and foremost working class, because that is 
> not what they live concretely.. can you account for that and work with 
> that, or will you ignore it?
> 

First, women who come into political activity because they want to
take up "women's issues" come immediatley and directly into conflict
with the straight jacket capitalism imposes, and the only way
round this road block is socialist politics.

feminist : "We need a womens centre"
local council leader ( also a feminist ) : "we can't afford it"
feminist : "Tax the rich, then".
local council leader : "get out of here or I'll call the cops"

Second, you are wrong, working class women ( ie the vast majority
of women ) are just as likely ( I think more likely ) to define
themselves as trade unionists, anti war activists, anti poll tax
activists, or supporters of Quebecois independence.

> The question is: why _is_ there a feminist movement?  Why has it 
> EXPLICITLY posed itself as a reaction to "we can all work together" 
> attitudes in socialist organizations in the 60s?
> 

But in the US it was partly due to the lack of socialist 
politics in the anti war movement, and without socialist
politics there is no natural unity of the oppressed whatever
- only fragmentation.

I'll stop here, I may return to this question later.

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---